Constitutional human right in the context of the COVID-19 challenge

Abstract

The purpose of the article is research the interaction between human rights and measures to protect public health in the face of new legal challenges posed by COVID-19 through the disclosure of key legal standards to combat pandemic threats; study of the problem of restriction of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and mass events; to analyze aspects of the implementation of the constitutional right to education in a pandemic crisis and the issue of restriction of freedom of movement. The article examines the interaction between human rights and measures to protect public health in the face of new legal challenges posed by COVID-19 through the disclosure of key legal standards to combat pandemic threats; study of the problem of restriction of the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and mass events; to analyze aspects of the implementation of the constitutional right to education in a pandemic crisis and the issue of restriction of freedom of movement.
 The author's methodological analysis included a number of philosophical, general scientific and special scientific methods. In particular, the method of comparative jurisprudence was used to analyze the experience of a number of countries in allowing the restriction of human rights. The comparative method contributed to the generalization of knowledge in the field of medicine, law, public administration, psychology, etc. Synergetic aimed at the binary nature of legal reality and uncertainty in a pandemic crisis.
 The positions of scientists and institutional international bodies on the legitimacy of restrictions on human rights are represented, the position is motivated by a casual dimension. The author reveals the key standards of counteracting pandemic threats, special attention is focused on the problem of restricting the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and mass events. The difficulties of realization of the constitutional right to education in the conditions of pandemic crisis are pointed out and also questions of legality and non-discrimination in the field of freedom of movement are raised.
 An analysis of the experience of a number of countries has shown that in most countries, the rules of exclusive action allow for restrictions on human rights or certain deviations from the general mechanism of their implementation in times of health threats and/or national emergencies. However, in accordance with international law, as well as constitutional law in democracies, such measures must be necessary, proportionate and reasonably linked to legitimate public aims.
 It is stated that state anti-epidemiological measures deprive citizens of the opportunity to properly exercise their constitutional rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, mass events, the right to education, and freedom of movement. Please note that the introduction of measures to prevent diseases that threaten public health should be exclusively for this purpose and should be motivated by critical necessity and not by political motives and interests. Restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim, demonstrate the exact nature of the threat and be proportionate according to that aim. This should demonstrate the direct and immediate link between the implication and the threat.
 The conclusion states that the restrictions imposed by the application must comply with strict proportionality tests. Restrictions should not be too broad, they should be the least intrusive.